The dismissal of an employee of the RSPCA was unfair simply because of a delay with no good reason of some 7 months in initiating proceedings. This was even though the employee had suffered no prejudice as a result of the delay.
If a contribution is to be found, on principle, it should be found equally in proportion both to the basic award, and to the compensatory award, but in an exceptional case, a tribunal can make a different percentage reduction. ‘It should be made clear . . there is a discretion, and that any suggestion that the mere fact that the Tribunal has not reduced the basic and the compensatory awards in precisely the same proportions is necessarily indicative of a failure properly to exercise their discretion cannot be sustained.’ and ‘Plainly both subsections involve the exercise of a discretion, and the wording of each, while sufficiently different to admit of differentiation in cases where the Tribunal finds on the facts that it is justified, is sufficiently similar to lead us to conclude that it is only exceptionally that such differentiation will be justified.’
Citations:
[1986] ICR 205, [1986] IRLR 83
Cited by:
Cited – A v B EAT 14-Nov-2002
The claimant worked as a residential social worker. Allegations were made against him of inappropriate behaviour with a child. The girl’s allegations varied. A criminal investigation took place but insufficient evidence was found. The investigation . .
Cited – Styles v London Borough of Southwark EAT 12-Apr-2006
EAT Dismissal for misconduct. Tribunal concluded that whilst there were certain procedural failings, the dismissal was fair. Were they entitled to reach that conclusion or were the failings, considered . .
Approved – Parker Foundry Ltd v Slack CA 1992
The appellant employee had been involved in a fight with a fellow-employee and had been dismissed. The other employee received a lesser penalty because the employer believed that Mr. Slack had been the aggressor. The industrial tribunal held that . .
Cited – Sterling Granada Contract Services Ltd v Hodgkinson EAT 29-Mar-1996
. .
Cited – Emms v UCATT EAT 28-Mar-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Application/Claim. . .
Cited – The Fire Brigades Union v Croucher EAT 2-Jun-2004
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal – Failure of Employment Tribunal to apply Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] IRLR 23.
EAT Unfair Dismissal – . .
Cited – Edinburgh Council v Wood EAT 2-May-2008
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal – Tribunal found two ‘stand alone’ material breaches, one in respect of penalty imposed for misconduct and one in respect of respondents’ response to claimant’s . .
Cited – Birmingham City Council and Another v Samuels EAT 24-Oct-2007
EAT Unfair dismissal – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal
Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke
Race discrimination – Direct / Burden of proof / . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.268060